WebGPURenderer: Rename RenderPipeline to RenderObjectPipeline

[sunag]

Related issue: #32535

Description

Rename RenderPipeline to RenderObjectPipeline.

[github-actions]

📦 Bundle size

Full ESM build, minified and gzipped.

	Before	After	Diff
WebGL	355.82 84.56	355.82 84.56	+0 B +0 B
WebGPU	621.5 172.57	621.5 172.57	+0 B +0 B
WebGPU Nodes	620.1 172.33	620.1 172.33	+0 B +0 B

🌳 Bundle size after tree-shaking

Minimal build including a renderer, camera, empty scene, and dependencies.

	Before	After	Diff
WebGL	488.06 119.45	488.06 119.45	+0 B +0 B
WebGPU	691.97 187.85	691.97 187.85	+0 B +0 B
WebGPU Nodes	641.77 175.02	641.77 175.02	+0 B +0 B

[Mugen87]

Slightly related: How do you feel about renaming NodeMaterialObserver to RenderObjectObserver and move it to src/renderers/common?

[sunag]

Slightly related: How do you feel about renaming NodeMaterialObserver to RenderObjectObserver and move it to src/renderers/common?

The concept is interesting, using RenderObjectObserver I would prefer to remove NodeMaterial.setupObserver() to avoid bringing dependencies from the renderers/common namespace into the NodeMaterial class and leave everything at the core. But I think that using NodeMaterialObserver with NodeMaterial.setupObserver() offers a higher level of extension, considering that the user could have their own MyMaterialObserver class for a specific material in order to optimize it. Unless we consider that there is no need to create extensions of the observer.. 🤔

[Mugen87]

I suggested the new name since NodeMaterialObserver checks a lot of properties and states which are unrelated to materials.RenderObjectObserver as a more generic name should better represent what this module actually does.